As IF Times

link EU Formally Ends Microsoft Antitrust Case – WSJ.com

As if we needed more proof that the winds of socialism are blowing ever stronger worldwide; and this has got nothing to do with weather change. This headline released a few days ago created very little fanfare in the news because there were more salacious stories on the front pages everywhere.

The sheer numbers of dollars spent on this issue, $2 billion dollars in fines by the EU, not to mention hundreds of millions of legal fees spent by both sides are disturbing given what was at issue. It would be curious to see where these fines go. Do they go to general revenue of the ‘EU regulators’? Do they go to compensate the other software makers who were hard done by Microsoft?

The main issue being fought was the accusation by the EU and a consortium of browser makers led by Opera, that Microsoft, because of their dominant position in software distribution due to the ubiquity of the Windows operating system, was crowding out other competitors in favour of their own Internet browser.

So?

Let’s employ a simplistic analogy;

Microsoft starts a restaurant business with a menu that everyone suddenly wants and will pay for. They build stores and successfully dominate the food business. As time goes on, they start refining their menu including packaging meals with their own burger/fries combo. A competitor decides he wants to sell their burgers as part of the meal combos claiming that their product is better and that for the restaurant to deny them is uncompetitive.

“Not a fair analogy”, I hear from the back of the room, “because in the real world, people can go to other restaurants”. “The better analogy is that Microsoft builds the roads and restricts which cars can drive on them, since you don’t necessarily have a choice of roads”.

I suggest both are somewhat valid in illustrating the principle. Bill Gates and his crew not only developed and marketed a product for which the world had a huge demand, but were shrewd enough to manage the distribution of their goods against other competitors. If the folks at Opera, a competing browser, genuinely had a superior product, consumers would buy their product as opposed to Internet Explorer. (Purely coincidentally, Opera is based in Norway, home of the Nobel Peace prize ). But rather than expose their products to the votes of the consumer, they choose to enlist the EU to come to their aid in order to force Microsoft to sell their products alongside Microsoft’s’.

I’m unaware of why the Apple operating system was not targeted for this concern. Apple as we know, have their own proprietary system as opposed to Microsoft which has an ‘open’ system, thereby allowing 3rd party vendors to make products compatible with their systems, thus enabling competition and development. But just because you allow for competitors shouldn’t mean you have to market them actively as well.

Socialist capitalism is upon us. It’s a leap perhaps to extrapolate this trend into the future, but it certainly points to a climate where innovation is allowed to succeed only ‘so’ much, at least until someone else wants a piece of the success. The surest way to kill innovation is to remove all incentives for it’s commercial development. Free markets should be kept free without governments stepping in to bully fines from successful companies. We can all remember Sony Betamax formats, 8 track tapes, AMC Pacers, film cameras and the 3 major TV news networks.

Eventually, something better comes along and consumers vote. Without the help of lawyers.